Listened to the discussion. Thanks for adding value to the community through open discourse. I’ll share my thoughts if anyone wants to geek out on philosophy, anthro-complexity, economics, etc.
Be warned TLDR: humans are complex social beings and we are far better served finding ways to achieve working compromise, than to demonize each other simply because our values differ. If Dharma refuses to engage in this dialog, then we have no choice but to assume they are complicit by absence. If however, they choose to collaborate on a solution but we continue to vacillate in our refusal to empathize, we are complicit by choice and have undermined our right to an objective opinion.
The assumption that a ‘for profit’ organization has nothing but self-interest in mind is extremely problematic. The core polarity fallacy that if it’s not black, it must be white, is central here. Just because you are ‘for profit’, does not mean that your corporate value system focuses solely on driving revenue to sate the maniacal appetites of their shareholders. This is a blessedly naïve perspective of the world. Dharma is definitely fighting to establish a viable business model, but can we seriously kangaroo-court them into a ‘corporation’ stigma, and by association, assume arbitrarily that their actions should all be examined through the lens of ‘evil centralized interests’? We are acting precisely in the manner with which we are accusing them, but standing behind our value system as justification. Centralized vs decentralized. Representation vs Plutocracy. Polarities are fallacies, because most of life is lived in the middle - a spectrum.
The romanticism around decentralized permissionless governance is quaint, but they don’t address human nature and what we know of behavioural economics. Humans are hierarchical. Even as hunter gatherers we operated within a social hierarchy - if not a power hierarchy. Whether it is a token, or fiat, or social recognition, or kudos, all systems migrate towards autopoietic balance - or centralized control. If i can buy, or take, or trick others into giving me that item of intrinsic value, then i will do whatever is necessary to acquire it. The incentive is far too enticing to avoid for long. Eventually, power consolidates, or social influence consolidates into a systemic balance. Maybe technology can overcome this, but not for a very long time - our cognition is not wired for that degree of critical thought. Dharma is utilizing whatever means they have within the rules to achieve their ‘noble’ outcome. Everyone’s version of nobility differs of course, but we cannot immediately assume that a substantial delegate in the system went through all that trouble only to undermine the same system. If they are truly a ‘for-profit’ organization, there are far better and more effective ways to establish your brand presence, than to mount a ‘take-over’ campaign like we were trapped in a Sun Tzu essay 1000s of years after it was written. That is soo 90s corporate. Today, boardrooms are grappling with complexity - not the ‘competition’.
The one token - one vote is incredibly short-sighted, which you guys recognized. The ancient greeks made it work in a village town square where the numbers never exceeded 100s, and where decisions had existential consequences. When the Romans capitulated into an Empire, democracy died with it. That was a long time ago. Today, decentralizing decision making on a planet of 6 Billion is riddled with issues. The assumptions that you are forced to adopt includes a knowledgeable, conscientious voter who has the greater interests of the group in mind. If you cannot assure that, then you are left with adopting a delegate model, because like Plato’s philosopher king, the decision making is then given to a trusted person that has earned the right. In our case, delegates have to use social influence to acquire tokens, which renders them as no better than a politician. This is a horribly broken system. The solutions, sadly, are emergent. We simply don’t know because humanity has never been here before. I can suggest one thing however. Systems that adapt successfully are those that can change as quickly as the underlying context. This is the basis of Complexity Science and what it has taught us. Experimenting with different forms of governance, and yes, failing forward, will get us closer to an emergent solution that works ‘better’. I’m sure political scientists and marcro economists are busy writing papers about this as we speak. If however, we don’t have a fast feedback loop in our governance structure, then whether through voter apathy or highly restrictive governance constraints, the absence of a self-healing mechanism will not allow Uniswap to evolve quickly enough to avoid it’s own demise (all systems fight entropy in their own way - eventually most fail - look at the turnover of the fortune 500 for proof of this mechanism). This only leads towards one outcome. I like the idea of autonomous proposals to help solve that!
We are the trail blazers here, but we are fighting the most challenging of all possible challenges - humanity. In some ways, we are inquiring into human psychology and attempting to version it socially. Not an easy task, but who knows, with recent development in epi-genetics, it could work! I don’t have answers, but I do know one thing. Demonizing people or entities autonomically because of a perceived difference in ideologies, will get us nowhere. We may as well crawl back into that cave and we’ll get exactly what we deserve - crypto or otherwise. There are lots of upcoming disruptive technologies that will make crypto seem like solving a rubik’s cube (AGI for example). If however, we enter into open dialog where the intent is to achieve, NOT consensus, but something better as a result of the collaboration. Something unique, perhaps innovative, then we have unlocked the human potential for endless creativity. What I have objected to all along on this thread is not whether Dharma gets or does not get an opportunity to reward their poor idle, and mostly completely oblivious users who’ll never know that they can ‘claim’ any UNI. It was always about the knee-jerk reaction that many of us tend towards because of the perceived assault on our value system and our beliefs. The variety in values will always be there, unless we are condoning a 1984-like conditioning campaign. Finding ways to achieve effective compromise is the only way forward. What will happen when the world figures us out and massive fiat starts getting pumped into the system? The lobsters will very quickly sort out their hierarchy. Our biology dictates it. Can we sort out the technology to solve this inevitability? I doubt it, but it’s definitely worth the attempt.
p.s. I’m still a bit of a crypto neophyte, but why can’t we have a 1-wallet address 1-vote system? The address is weighted slightly by tenure of stake and size of stake, but only to incentivize good behaviour. KYC seems to be the only hiccup, because otherwise I’d just create bots to mount a sybill-like attack. What if KYC established uniqueness of your identity but without centrally hosting those details? I’m sure there is something like this out there. Anyway, just thinking out loud.